PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.

com

Determining The Motivation Levels of Employees in The

Forest Products Industry
Ibrahim Yildirim * and Mustafa Han

This research assessed employee motivation levels within the forest

products industry. A total of 1,175 individuals engaged in diverse roles
across the sector were involved in the study. Data collection relied on the
administration of questionnaires. The findings highlighted key motivational
factors. Notably, “wages, social rights, and work environment” emerged as
the primary contributors to mood and motivation. Similarly, the factors
encompassing “wages, social rights, reward systems, and bonuses”
ranked highest in terms of motivational tools. Job satisfaction was primarily
influenced by “wages and the fulfillment of individual needs.” Furthermore,
the study revealed that “education, talent, industriousness, and self-
sacrifice” were predominant among influential factors. When it came to
desired managerial qualities, “staffing and interpersonal skills” took
precedence. Material rewards like “leave entitlements and wage
increases” were the foremost considerations for recognizing achievement.
During the company selection process, employees considered wage
conditions, insurance, social opportunities, health and safety measures,
job security, management approach, and growth prospects as vital factors,
in descending order of importance.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.18.4.7856-7876

Keywords: Forest products industry; Furniture industry; Employee motivation; Quality of Work Life

Contact information: Department of Forest Industrial Engineering, Karadeniz Technical University

Trabzon 61080 Turkey; *Corresponding author: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Due to the global economic expansion and rapid technological advancements,

institutions and organizations are compelled to optimize their production resources to
enhance their overall production framework. Among these resources, employees stand out
as pivotal components of the production process. Central to the realm of work life are the
critical factors of job satisfaction and motivation. These elements are instrumental in
fostering a conducive work environment. However, despite their significance, the
exploration of the profound impact of job satisfaction and motivation remains relatively
limited. It is imperative that institutions recognize the essentiality of nurturing high levels
of job satisfaction and motivation among their employees to bolster efficiency and
effectiveness. This dearth of comprehensive exploration prompts a call for heightened
attention to these fundamental aspects within every organization. Supporting this
viewpoint, recent scholarly works (Rahimic et al. 2012; Solanki 2013; Varma 2017; Hitka
et al. 2020; Mappamiring et al. 2020; Paais and Pattiruhu 2020) emphasize the
indispensability of job satisfaction and motivation. As elucidated in these studies, these
factors play a crucial role in influencing employee performance and organizational success.
The concept of motivation is notably intricate, evoking extensive discourse among

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7856
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
researchers and resulting in a plethora of definitions within the literature. Whisenand and
Rush (1988) elucidate that motivation entails the voluntary engagement in activities and is
shaped by actions aimed at fulfilling inherent needs. Schunk et al. (2008) provide a distinct
perspective, defining motivation as the driving force behind initiating and sustaining
actions and endeavors towards specific objectives. Bartol and Martin (1998) contribute by
characterizing motivation as the dynamic that invigorates behavior, lends direction to
conduct, and underscores the inclination for persistence. Furthermore, Mitchell (1982)
encapsulates motivation as encompassing the psychological mechanisms responsible for
stimulating, directing, and perpetuating actions. The multifaceted role of motivation is
particularly critical for employees (Paais and Pattiruhu 2020). Within its definition, three
pivotal facets emerge: arousal, direction, and the perpetuation of behavior (Mitchell 1982;
Jalagat 2016). As motivation is inherently linked with action, both internal and external
forces exert influence upon it. This realization permits the classification of motivation into
two overarching categories: intrinsic, characterized by the engagement in activities for their
inherent rewards; and extrinsic, where activities are pursued with the intention of attaining
positive outcomes or averting negative consequences (Mitchell 1982; Deci et al. 1989;
Deci and Ryan 2000; Jalagat 2016).
The Forest Products Industries in Turkey are exclusively under the purview of the
private sector. This sector is composed of 87% micro, 10% small, and 3% medium and
large enterprises, as indicated by data from the Social Security Institution (SGK 2020). The
Social Security Institution's data further reveals that the forest products industries employ
a total of 10,606 enterprises and 66,003 employees within the wood products sector, 3,119
enterprises and 67,644 employees in paper and paper products manufacturing, and 23,266
enterprises with 174,178 employees in furniture manufacturing. Altogether, these sectors
contribute to a total of 36,991 enterprises employing 307,825 individuals within the forest
products industry in Turkey (SGK 2020). Turkey’s role in the global timber production
landscape is significant, ranking 13th out of 166 countries with a 1.6% share. Additionally,
Turkey’s contribution to world furniture production stands at approximately 1%, a
proportion that has exhibited an upward trajectory in recent times (Kara et al. 2019).
The wood-based panel industry holds significance in Turkey, primarily due to its
substantial production scale and substantial foreign trade involvement (Akyuz et al. 2020).
This sector directly employs a workforce of over 400,000 individuals and commands an
impressive sector size of 12 billion USD (Dogan and Akyildiz 2017). The collective
production capacity for panels reaches an impressive 12.5 million m3 annually. This
capacity has propelled Turkey to become the leading MDF producer in Europe and second
globally, trailing only China. Furthermore, in terms of particleboard production, Turkey
ranks as Europe’s third-largest producer, following Russia and Germany. On a global scale,
it stands as the fifth-largest producer, trailing China, the US, Russia, and Germany. In the
realm of laminate flooring, Turkey clinches a spot in the top three producers alongside
Germany and China. Impressively, Turkey contributes 5% to the worldwide panel
production and meets 9% of the global laminate flooring production (Dogan and Akyildiz
2017).
The forest products sector in Turkey is experiencing robust growth and holds
significant economic importance for the country. In the last decade, there has been a
remarkable 17.5% increase in the number of enterprises, coupled with a substantial 27.3%
rise in the workforce within the sector. A few studies were concentrated on motivation
levels of employees in the forest products industry. Trishkin et al. (2014) investigated the
attitudes and motivations of certified and noncertified forest industry companies in

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7857
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
northwestern Russia. Their findings led to the conclusion that discerning the primary
motivating factors uncovered variations in motivation and attitudes between the certified
and noncertified respondent groups. Aydin and Tiryaki (2017) examined whether there are
variations in the productivity and motivational effects of performance appraisal systems,
as well as performance appraisal practices, at the sub-sector level and based on the
demographic characteristics of participants. This research was conducted on 432
individuals employed in 14 Forest Product Enterprises. The study found that there was no
discernible distinction among the sub-sectors of the forest products industry regarding the
performance appraisal system’s sub-factors. Additionally, the results of variance analysis
conducted with respect to demographic characteristics revealed no significant disparities
among age groups. However, noteworthy variations emerged within the performance
appraisal sub-factors when considering education status, gender, marital status, position,
and total years of work experience (Aydin and Tiryaki 2017). Aydin and Tiryaki (2018)
studied the impact of performance appraisal on employee motivation and productivity
within the Turkish forest products industry, employing a structural equation model for
analysis. They reported that performance appraisal had a significant impact on both
employee motivation and productivity. Lorincova et al. (2018) endeavored to identify and
substantiate distinctions in the perception of motivation levels across managerial, white-
collar, and blue-collar workforce segments. Their findings led to the conclusion that there
are statistically significant disparities in the perception of motivation among managers,
white-collar employees, and blue-collar workers. These distinctions were corroborated in
several motivation factors, including the workplace atmosphere, teamwork, basic salary,
and the fairness of the appraisal system. Moreover, the research outcomes indicate that, in
contrast to blue-collar workers, managers and white-collar employees exhibit a preference
for similar motivation factors, such as a conducive workplace atmosphere and effective
teamwork. Hitka et al. (2019) studied the motivational priorities of white-collar employees
in forest enterprises. They determined that salary, workplace conditions and fair appraisal
system are the key motivational factors. These motivational factors can be methodically
employed as instruments for enhancing the motivation levels within specific groups. It is
crucial to acknowledge that work conditions and environments evolve over time,
necessitating the regular updating of an effective motivation program to ensure long-lasting
benefits (Hitka et al. 2019). The effect of COVID-19 pandemic on employee motivation in
agriculture and forest organizations was studied by Hitka et al. (2022). Their study revealed
that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted human resource management, with a
primary focus on employee motivation in agricultural and forestry organizations. The study
assessed the extent to which selected socio-demographic factors, including age and gender,
influenced employee motivation levels during the pandemic (Hitka et al. 2022).
The aim of this study was to assess the motivation levels and work life quality of
employees in Turkey's forest products industry. This research contributes to the field of
human resource management, specifically focusing on motivation within the forest
products industry, which holds substantial economic significance for the country.

EXPERIMENTAL

Materials
The analysis encompassed a comprehensive assessment of 1,175 questionnaires
administered to employees across diverse sectors, including furniture, board, paper, non-

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7858
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
wood forest products (NWFP), and services. These sectors are distributed extensively
across various regions of Turkey. The research cohort is composed of employees
occupying diverse roles within the forest products industry.

Methods
A 5-point Likert-type questionnaire, employing a scale ranging from 1 (Never
Affect) to 5 (Highly Affects), was employed for data collection, addressing both motivation
and quality of work life. The questionnaire was divided into two main sections: the initial
part encompassing sixty questions to assess demographic characteristics, and the
subsequent part to gauge motivation and quality of work life. Within the latter, 30 questions
were devoted to evaluating motivation levels, while the remaining 30 focused on assessing
work life quality. Each section was further segmented into six sub-factors, each composed
of five questions. The reliability of these questions was assessed through Cronbach’s Alpha
coefficient, yielding a robust overall value of 92.7% across the entire 60-question spectrum.
Specifically, Cronbach’s Alpha was computed at 87.9% for the 30 questions concerning
motivation levels and 89.5% for the 30 questions pertaining to work life quality. To ensure
comprehension and consistency, the study utilized the scale featured in Cicek’s doctoral
research (2005), employing the same 5-point Likert-type format.
For statistical analysis, the study employed independent sample t-tests to discern
any statistically significant disparities in motivation levels and work life quality among
employees with differing demographic attributes. Furthermore, the one-way ANOVA test
was employed for comparing means across three or more groups (Kalayci 2018).
The intricate relationship between motivational sub-factors (e.g., Factors Affecting
Mood and Motivation Level, Motivation Tools, Factors Determining Job Satisfaction,
Valid Factors in Promotion, Managerial Qualifications, Rewards for Success) and work
life quality sub-factors (e.g., Moral and Factors Affecting Motivation Level, Motivation
Tools, Factors Determining Job Satisfaction, Valid Factors in Promotion, Managerial
Qualifications, Rewards for Success) were explored through multiple regression analysis.
All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS 22 statistical software package.
The below hypotheses were formulated:
H1 A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6: Motivation levels of employees in the forest products
industry vary according to the examined demographic characteristics,
H1 A7, A8, A9, A10, A11, A12: Quality of work life levels of employees in the
forest products industry varies according to the examined demographic characteristics,
H2 A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6: Sub-factors of motivation levels of employees in the
forest products industry are affected by sub-factors of quality of work life.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Findings on Demographic Characteristics of Employees

The statistical distribution of demographic characteristics of the employees in the
forest products industry is given in detail in Table 1. Within the forest products industry,
the male workforce constitutes 85.1% of the total workforce. Among them, 49% are
employed in the furniture sector, while 34.3% are engaged in the panel sector. In terms of
job roles, 63.5% of employees occupy worker positions, with 41.6% falling within the age
range of 26 to 35 years. Furthermore, 44.4% of participants have a tenure of 2 to 5 years,
while 44.8% hold high school degrees (Table 1).

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7859
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Table 1. Statistical Data on Demographic Characteristics of the Employees
Field Amount Percent Gender Amount Percent
(N) (%) (N) (%)
Furniture 576 49.0 Male 1000 85.1
Panel 403 34.3 Female 175 14.9
Paper Marital Status Amount Percent
100 8.5
(N) (%)
NWFP 61 5.2 Married 752 64.0
Service 35 3.0 Single 423 36.0
Education Amount Percent Age Amount Percent
(N) (%) (N) (%)
Elementary 18-25
146 12.4 285 24.3
School
Middle School 213 18.1 26-35 489 41.6
High School 526 44.8 36-40 222 18.9
Vocational School 133 11.3 41-50 147 12.5
Bachelor 157 13.4 Over 51 32 2.7
Position Amount Percent Service Year Amount Percent
(N) (%) (N) (%)
Employee 746 63.5 1 year or less 181 15.4
Technician 97 8.3 2- 5 522 44.4
Expert 56 4.8 6-10 281 23.9
Engineer 132 11.2 11-20 161 13.7
Office Workers 96 8.2 Over 21 30 2.6
Others 48 4.1

Findings on Motivation Levels of Employees

The statistical distribution of employees in the forest products industry based on
their motivation levels is given in Table 2 with sub-factors. Ranked with an average score
of 4.27, the factor “Wages, social rights, and work environment” emerged as a notable
contributor to employee motivation. It secured the lead position in terms of influencing
mood and motivation levels. Conversely, “Wages, social rights, award, and bonus system”
claimed the prime position among motivational tools with an average score of 4.29,
significantly impacting job satisfaction. Similarly, the factor “Satisfying wages and
individual needs” commanded the forefront of work satisfaction, boasting an average score
of 4.28. Within the realm of attributes pertinent to promotion, “Education, talent,
industriousness, and self-sacrifice” took precedence with an average score of 4.19.
Additionally, “Orientation of personnel and human resources” dominated the domain of
administrator-related factors with an average score of 4.23. Furthermore, “Material rewards
such as leave and salary increase” led the category of award-related factors with an average
score of 4.22. This category encompassed various awards that acknowledged success
(Table 2).
In a comparative context, Gedik et al. (2018) reported an average work motivation
score of 4.28 in their study. Aydin and Ucuncu (2016) found a motivation average of 4.23
in their research. Aksu’s (2001) study highlighted premium wages as a motivating factor,
accounting for 14.1%, followed by wage increases and appreciation at 13%. Furthermore,
Gedik (2010) reported an average score of 3.11 for the sub-scale that addressed equal
promotion opportunities for employees.

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7860
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Table 2. Statistical Data on Motivation Sub-levels of Employees
Group General
A1 Factors affecting mood and motivation level S.S
Number Number
A1.1 Achievements and appreciation at work 4.14 0.85 2 7
A1.2 Family life and personal problems 3.87 1.01 5 24
A1.3 Wages, benefits and work environment 4.27 0.83 1 3
Opportunity for self-development with authority and
A1.4 3.99 0.94 3 20
responsibilities
Relationships, communication and communication with
A1.5 3.97 0.96 4 21
managers
Average 4.06 0.62
A2 Motivation tools
A2.1 Training and promotion opportunities 4.00 0.95 2 16
A2.2 Delegation of authority and responsibility 3.98 0.86 3 18
A2.3 Participation in management decisions 3.89 0.96 4 23
A2.4 Wages, social benefits, award and bonus system 4.29 0.80 1 1
A2.5 Competition conditions and performance evaluation 3.57 1.14 5 30
Average 3.95 0.64
A3 Factors determining job satisfaction
A3.1 Promotion and self-development 3.99 0.86 4 17
A3.2 Working conditions 4.08 0.76 2 13
A3.3 Cooperation and communication 3.93 0.90 5 22
A3.4 Salary and meeting individual needs 4.28 0.78 1 2
A3.5 Mood, motivation and professional prestige 4.02 0.91 3 15
Average 4.06 0.57
A4 Factors applicable to promotion
A4.1 Appearance and representation 3.72 1.03 5 28
A4.2 External pressures and attendance 3.87 0.91 4 25
A4.3 Service time and experience 4.14 0.85 2 8
Good relations with administrators, communication and
A4.4 4.10 0.82 3 11
human relations
A4.5 Education, talent, diligence and dedication 4.19 0.86 1 6
Average 4.01 0.60
A5 Qualifications considered in a administrator
A5.1 Self-confidence and using tolerance 4.13 0.80 2 9
A5.2 Education, knowledge, experience, rank and seniority 4.12 0.83 3 10
A5.3 Physical abilities 3.85 0.92 5 26
A5.4 Planning ability and self-assertion 4.06 0.89 4 14
A5.5 Directing staff and human relations 4.23 0.92 1 4
Average 4.08 0.56
A6 Awards factor in return success
A6.1 Financial rewards such as leave and pay raises 4.22 0.851 1 5
A6.2 Training and promotion opportunities 4.09 0.857 2 12
A6.3 More authority and initiative 3.98 0.86 3 19
A6.4 Spiritual rewards such as commendation and plaques 3.58 1.22 5 29
Opportunity to work closer to the manager and different
A6.5 3.79 1.05 4 27
tasks
Average 3.94 0.63
: Arithmetic mean, S.S: Standard deviation

Findings on Quality of Work Life of Employees

The statistical distribution of employees in the forest products industry based on
the quality of work life is given in Table 3 with all sub-factors.

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7861
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Table 3. Statistical Data on Sub-levels of Work Life Quality of Employees
Group General
A7 The most important human needs S.S
Number Number
A7.1 Approval and psychological needs 3.84 0.93 5 22
A7.2 Family formation and social needs 4.04 0.82 2 13
A7.3 Security need 3.92 0.92 4 19
A7.4 Food, clothing and physiological needs 4.06 0.85 1 12
A7.5 Recognition, loving and being loved, showing talents 4.02 0.94 3 15
Average 3.98 0.59
A8 Top reasons for dissatisfaction in job
A8.1 Relationships with administrators and colleagues 3.63 1.11 3 27
A8.2 Wages and the work itself 3.56 1.23 4 28
A8.3 Lack of authority and responsibility 3.55 1.22 5 29
Physical conditions of the work environment and
A8.4 3.77 1.04 1 23
working hours
Competition conditions, lack of promotion and training
A8.5 3.64 1.22 2 26
opportunities
Average 3.64 0.89
A9 Expectations from the company
A9.1 Job security and good working conditions 4.14 0.87 2 8
A9.2 Wages and benefits 4.24 0.80 1 4
A9.3 Teamwork and participation in decisions 3.89 1.00 5 20
A9.4 Recognition, appreciation, love and respect 4.08 0.84 4 10
Opportunities to use talents, achieve success and
A9.5 4.13 0.84 3 9
progress
Average 4.10 0.60
A10 Reasons why people need a job
A10.1 Producing and evaluating time 3.50 1.24 5 30
A10.2 Earning money and starting a family 4.31 0.82 1 2
A10.3 Gaining education and experience 3.97 0.94 3 16
Serving the community and being a member of an
A10.4 3.65 1.19 4 25
organization
Establishing relationships with people, gaining respect
A10.5 4.03 0.92 2 14
in society
Average 3.90 0.67
A11 Expectations in terms of professional development
A11.1 Wage increase 4.31 0.790 1 1
A11.2 Promotion and appreciation 4.20 0.80 2 6
A11.3 Job security and greater empowerment 3.88 1.06 4 21
A11.4 Achievement and dignity, communication and friendship 4.06 0.92 3 11
Good working conditions and the opportunity for working
A11.5 3.72 1.25 5 24
abroad
Average 4.04 0.67
A12 Improvability of work life quality
A12.1 Improving physical conditions at work 4.23 0.77 2 5
A12.2 Reducing working time 4.17 0.86 3 7
A12.3 Paying more wages 4.31 0.75 1 3
A12.4 Giving more authority and responsibility 3.93 1.05 5 18
A12.5 Better communication with administrators 3.96 1.05 4 17
Average 4.13 0.55
: Arithmetic mean, S.S: Standard deviation

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7862
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Addressing basic human necessities, such as food, clothing, and physiological
needs, achieved the forefront with an average score of 4.06. This factor pertains to the most
crucial human needs and represents a relatively lower dimension of work life quality for
employees. On the other hand, “Physical conditions of the work environment and working
hours” obtained the lead position in the factor of greatest work dissatisfaction, garnering
an average score of 3.77. Within the domain of expectations from the company, “Wage
and social benefits” emerged with an average score of 4.24. In terms of the underlying
motives for employment, “Earning money and starting a family” clinched the premier spot
with an average score of 4.31. Moreover, within the framework of professional
development, “Wage increase” secured the forefront with an average score of 4.31.
Additionally, “Increasing wages” and “Earning more wages” jointly dominated the aspect
of enhancing the quality of work life, both achieving an average score of 4.31 (Table 3).

Independent Sample T-Test Results on Motivation Levels and Work Life

Quality Levels of Employees by Gender
No statistically significant difference was observed in motivation levels and work
life quality levels with respect to gender (P>0.05). These results are consistent with
findings of Hitka et al. (2022). In a study by Gedik et al. (2018), women exhibited higher
work motivation than men. In contrast, Aydin and Ucuncu (2016) reported higher average
motivation among men in their research. Similarly, Turkoglu and Yurdakul (2017)
discovered that men displayed higher job satisfaction and job performance averages
compared to women. Akyuz and Yildirim (2015) indicated that women held a higher mean
in intrinsic job satisfaction, whereas men held a higher mean in intrinsic satisfaction. In
another study, Cok et al. (2017) concluded that men reported higher job satisfaction than
women.

Independent Sample T-Test Results on Motivation Levels and Work Life

Quality Levels of Employees by Marital Status
A comprehensive presentation of the outcomes from the Independent Sample T-
Test concerning the motivation levels and work life quality levels of employees based on
their marital status can be found in Table 4.

Table 4. Independent Sample t-test Results on Motivation Levels and Work Life
Quality Levels of Employees According to their Marital Status
Sub factors Marital status N S.S t P
Married 752 4.02 0.65
A1 -2.033 .042
Single 423 4.10 0.55
Married 752 3.91 0.65
A2 -2.548 .011
Single 423 4.01 0.60

“Factors affecting mood and motivation level” and “Motivation Tools” Sub-Factors
Based on Marital Status Among Employees were statistically significant (P<0.05). Single
employees expressed a greater emphasis on several motivational aspects compared to their
married counterparts. Notably, they assigned higher importance to “Factors Affecting
Mood and Motivation Level,” “Motivational Tools,” “Factors Valid for Promotion,”
“Qualifications Relevant for Administrative Roles,” “Awards as Indicators of Success,”
“Primary Job Dissatisfaction Factors,” “Expectations from the Employing Company,” and
“Enhancement of Work-Life Quality” (Refer to Table 4).

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7863
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Consistent with existing literature, the present findings align with previous studies.
Turkoglu and Yurdakul (2017) reported higher levels of job satisfaction and job
performance among single individuals. Likewise, Akyuz and Yildirim (2015) discovered
elevated satisfaction levels in both internal and external job contexts for singles.
Additionally, Cok et al. (2017) identified a gender-related discrepancy, showing that men
exhibit greater job satisfaction compared to women. Thus, this study resonates with these
established trends, reinforcing its alignment with the broader body of literature.
The present research demonstrates a significant link between marital status and
motivational factors, highlighting distinct patterns in the perception of various motivational
elements. The pronounced emphasis on specific motivational aspects among single
employees underscores the need for tailored motivational approaches that consider
individual life circumstances. These findings deepen our understanding of the complex
interplay between personal factors and workplace motivation, contributing valuable
insights to the field.

One-Way ANOVA Results of Levels of Motivation and Work Life Quality of

Employees by Age Groups
The results of one-way ANOVA regarding the motivation levels and work life
quality levels of the employees by age groups are given in Table 5.

Table 5. One-way ANOVA of Motivation Levels and Work Life Quality Levels by
Age Groups
Sub-Factors Age N S.S P Duncan
18-25 (1) 285 3.9832 .55462
26-35 (2) 489 3.9840 .58505
36-40 (3) 222 4.0495 .62314 (4)
A7 41-50 (4) 147 3.8136 .63404 .001 (1-2-3)
51 and over (3-5)
32 4.2063 .45574
(5)
Total 1175 3.9809 .59249
18-25 (1) 285 4.1439 .60159
26-35 (2) 489 4.0818 .59190
36-40 (3) 222 4.1450 .65027
(1-2-3-4)
A9 41-50 (4) 147 3.9810 .49895 .042
(1-2-3-5)
51 and over
32 4.1938 .62110
(5)
Total 1175 4.0992 .59743
18-25 (1) 285 3.9032 .67419
26-35 (2) 489 3.9002 .66445
36-40 (3) 222 3.9883 .65966
(1-2-4)
A10 41-50 (4) 147 3.7429 .69044 .016
(1-2-3-5)
51 and over
32 3.9500 .61382
(5)
Total 1175 3.8992 .67027
18-25 (1) 285 4.1214 .64568
26-35 (2) 489 4.0164 .68609
36-40 (3) 222 4.0685 .65771
(2-3-4-5)
A11 41-50 (4) 147 3.9061 .63389 .025
(1-2-3-5)
51 and over
32 4.0250 .76327
(5)
Total 1175 4.0381 .66898

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7864
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
As indicated in Table 5, the sub-factors, namely “The Most Important Human
Needs,” “Expectations from the Company,” “The Underlying Reasons for Employment,”
and “Anticipations in regards to Professional Development,” exhibited statistically
significant disparities concerning the various age cohorts of employees (P < 0.05).
Upon subjecting the resultant homogeneity groups arising from these disparities to
analysis through the Duncan test, a Post-Hoc assessment method, distinct patterns emerge.
Particularly, three groups materialize within the context of the “The Most Important
Human Needs” subscale. Notably, the 41-50 age category demonstrates the lowest average,
while those aged 51 and above exhibit the highest average. Furthermore, while individuals
within the 41-50 age group form a discrete cluster, those aged 18-25, 26-35, and 36-40
encompass a single group. Similarly, individuals aged 36-40 and those above 51 years old
form another cohesive group. Importantly, the 36-40 age cohort overlaps within both of
these groups.
The “Expectations from the Company” subscale reveals the formation of two
distinct groups. Notably, individuals aged 51 years and above exhibit a higher average.
Conversely, those falling within the age brackets of 18-25, 26-35, 36-40, and 41-50
comprise one cohesive group. Remarkably, individuals aged 18-25, 26-35, and 36-40 are
encompassed within both of these groups. Likewise, within the “Reasons for Workplace
Engagement” sub-scale, a dichotomy emerges, resulting in the constitution of two groups.
Individuals aged between 36 and 40 exhibit a higher average compared to other age
categories. Interestingly, those aged 18-25, 26-35, and 41-50 are amalgamated into a single
group, while those aged 18-25 and 26-35 are simultaneously represented in both groups.
Furthermore, the “Aspirations for Professional Development” subscale also yields two
distinct groups. Intriguingly, those aged 18-25 display a superior average. Simultaneously,
individuals aged 26-35, 36-40, 41-50, and 51 and above constitute a single group, while
those aged 26-35 and 36-40 are concurrently included in both groups.
The work of Gedik et al. (2018) highlights that individuals aged between 31 and 40
exhibit elevated levels of work motivation. Correspondingly, the research conducted by
Turkoglu and Yurdakul (2017) revealed that those aged 46 to 45 tend to experience greater
job satisfaction and demonstrate improved job performance. Furthermore, Akyuz et al.
(2011) reported that individuals aged 45 and above express contentment with their
colleagues and supervisors. Similarly, Akyuz and Yildirim (2015) established that
individuals above the age of 45 manifest heightened levels of both internal and external
job satisfaction. Likewise, the study by Cok et al. (2017) underscored that individuals aged
55 and above tend to exhibit elevated job satisfaction levels. As such, the findings of the
current study are harmonious with the existing literature. In conclusion, motivation, and
quality of work life increase with age in certain age groups, while they decrease in other
age groups. Similar results were also found by Hitka et al. (2022). This is because men in
the mentioned age group recognize their role as the primary providers for their families,
and as a result, they exert significant effort to fulfill their financial obligations and needs.

One-Way ANOVA Results of Levels of Motivation and Work Life Quality of

Employees by Educational Status
The results of one-way ANOVA regarding the motivation levels and work life
quality levels of the employees according to their educational status are given in Table 6.
Table 6 indicates that the sub factors of “Factors affecting mood and motivation
level”, “Motivational tools”, “Factors determining job satisfaction”, “Factors valid for
promotion”, “Qualifications thought to be in a manager”, “Awards factor in return success

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7865
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
in terms of the educational status of the employees”, “The most important human needs”,
“The reasons for the most dissatisfaction with the job”, “The reasons why people need to
work at a job”, and “Expectations in terms of professional development” showed a
statistically difference (P<0.05).

Table 6. One-way ANOVA of Motivation Levels and Work Life Quality Levels by
Educational Level
Sub factors Education level N S.S P Duncan
Elementary school (1) 146 3.8959 .79001
Middle school (2) 213 3.9962 .63512 (1-2)
High school (3) 526 4.0403 .57069 (2-3)
A1 .000
Vocational school (4) 133 4.1474 .59640 (3-4)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.2535 .52447 (4-5)
Total 1175 4.0550 .61824
Elementary school (1) 146 3.8110 .76286
Middle school (2) 213 3.8995 .63443
(1-2-3)
High school (3) 526 3.9092 .62122
A2 .000 (2-3-4)
Vocational school (4) 133 4.0316 .59332
(5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.2229 .53922
Total 1175 3.9510 .64006
Elementary school (1) 146 4.0466 .60300
Middle school (2) 213 4.0019 .60251
High school (3) 526 4.0309 .54644 (1-2-3-4)
A3 .000
Vocational school (4) 133 4.0977 .58445 (5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.2522 .49879
Total 1175 4.0647 .56705
Elementary school (1) 146 3.9740 .79108
Middle school (2) 213 3.9577 .60680
High school (3) 526 4.0167 .56463 (1-2-3-4)
A4 .045
Vocational school (4) 133 3.9519 .56844 (3-5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.1299 .50376
Total 1175 4.0085 .59949
Elementary school (1) 146 4.1301 .61682
Middle school (2) 213 4.0291 .62382
High school (3) 526 4.0422 .53734 (1-2-3-4)
A5 .011
Vocational school (4) 133 4.1368 .58068 (1-4-5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.1949 .48089
Total 1175 4.0819 .56442
Elementary school (1) 146 3.9589 .59186
Middle school (2) 213 3.8723 .65749
High school (3) 526 3.9340 .62403 (1-2-3-4)
A6 .005
Vocational school (4) 133 3.8466 .63384 (5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.0904 .60402
Total 1175 3.9369 .62771
Elementary school (1) 146 4.0877 .69042
Middle school (2) 213 3.9690 .57394
(2-3-4)
High school (3) 526 3.9133 .59209
A7 .000 (1-2-4)
Vocational school (4) 133 3.9774 .53973
(1-5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.1274 .52631
Total 1175 3.9809 .59249
Elementary school (1) 146 3.8479 .79144
(2-3-4-5)
A8 Middle school (2) 213 3.5531 .91572 .017
(1-5)
High school (3) 526 3.5932 .88584

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7866
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Vocational school (4) 133 3.6466 .86195
Bachelor (5) 157 3.6866 .92467
Total 1175 3.6361 .88593
Elementary school (1) 146 4.0219 .64802
Middle school (2) 213 3.8188 .70979
(2-3-4)
High school (3) 526 3.8684 .66570
A10 .009 (3-4-5)
Vocational school (4) 133 3.8827 .67516
(1-4-5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.0115 .62439
Total 1175 3.8992 .67027
Elementary school (1) 146 4.1260 .63983
Middle school (2) 213 3.9531 .65189
High school (3) 526 4.0099 .67402 (2-3-4)
A11 .020
Vocational school (4) 133 4.0526 .65731 (1-3-4-5)
Bachelor (5) 157 4.1541 .69425
Total 1175 4.0381 .66898
Upon conducting an analysis of the homogeneity groups formed due to these
observed differences, employing the Duncan test as a prominent Post-Hoc assessment,
notable trends emerged across various sub-factors:
1. Within the “Factors Affecting Mood and Motivation Level” subscale, a total of four
distinct groups were discerned. Notably, graduates with bachelor’s degrees
command the highest average. Notably, those holding elementary school and
middle school degrees, secondary school and high school qualifications, high
school and vocational school certificates, and vocational school and bachelor’s
degrees find themselves within relatively similar groupings.
2. The “Motivation Tools” subscale unveiled three discernible clusters. Here,
graduates holding bachelor’s degrees achieved the highest average and stand as an
independent group.
3. For the “Factors Determining Job Satisfaction” subscale, a dual-group
configuration arose. Graduates holding bachelor's degrees obtained the highest
average, consequently forming a distinct grouping.
4. In the context of the “Factors Valid for Promotion” subscale, a dichotomous
grouping pattern became evident. Graduates with bachelor’s degrees exhibited the
highest average, while high school graduates feature in both clusters.
5. Within the “Qualifications Considered for Managerial Roles” subscale, a dual-
group distribution surfaced. Graduates with bachelor’s degrees recorded the highest
average, whereas vocational school graduates are represented within both groups.
6. The “Awards for Success” subscale brought forth a two-group structure. Here,
graduates with bachelor’s degrees attained the highest average, standing as a
separate entity.
7. The “Most Important Human Needs” subscale generated three distinct groupings,
once again showcasing graduates with bachelor's degrees registering the highest
average. This extends to encompass elementary school, middle school, and
vocational school graduates within both clusters.
8. Within the “Reasons for Job Dissatisfaction” subscale, a binary grouping pattern
emerges, with elementary school graduates displaying the highest average.
Notably, graduates with bachelor's degrees are encompassed within both groupings.
9. In the “Reasons Why People Need to Work” subscale, a three-fold clustering
unfolds, where elementary school graduates record the highest average. High
school graduates find representation in both clusters, while vocational school

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7867
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
graduates span all three groups.
10. In the “Expectations Regarding Professional Development” subscale, a dual-group
pattern emerges. Graduates with bachelor's degrees achieve the highest average,
with high school graduates and vocational school graduates also finding
representation within both clusters.
In summation, a comprehensive examination of these homogeneity groups unveiled
varied and significant associations across diverse sub-factors. Notably, graduates with
bachelor’s degrees often had the highest averages and distinct groupings, signifying their
distinctive perceptions.
In the examination conducted by Gedik et al. (2018), it was determined that
vocational school graduates exhibit elevated levels of work motivation in comparison to
their counterparts. Similarly, the research by Turkoglu and Yurdakul (2017) established
that individuals with graduate school degrees report enhanced job satisfaction and superior
job performance as compared to other graduates. Additionally, the investigation by Akyuz
and Yildirim (2015) revealed that graduates with bachelor's degrees manifest heightened
levels of job satisfaction and external contentment. Conversely, the study undertaken by
Cok et al. (2017) unearthed that individuals holding elementary school degrees experience
heightened job satisfaction.

One-Way ANOVA Results of Levels of Motivation and Work Life Quality of

Employees According to Their Positions in the Company
The results of one-way ANOVA regarding the motivation levels and work life
quality levels of the employees according to their positions in the enterprise are given in
Table 7. The sub-factors of “Factors affecting mood and motivation level”, “Motivational
tools”, “Factors determining job satisfaction”, “Most dissatisfaction with the job”, and
“Reasons people need to work in a job” in terms of their positions in the company showed
a statistically significant difference (P<0.05).
Upon subjecting these differences to analysis using the Duncan test, distinct
patterns emerged within various sub-factors:
1. Within the “Factors Affecting Mood and Motivation Level” subscale, a bifurcation
led to the formation of two groups. Notably, those employed as engineers attained
the highest average, while technicians, experts, office workers, and other
employees featured within both clusters.
2. The “Motivation Tools” subscale similarly revealed two groupings. Engineers
demonstrated the highest average, and those working as technicians were
encompassed within both clusters.
3. In terms of the “Factors Determining Job Satisfaction” subscale, a single group
configuration emerges, with engineers exhibiting the highest average.
4. Within the context of the “Reasons for Job Dissatisfaction” sub-scale, a solitary
group formation transpired, where employees collectively possessed the highest
average.
5. The “Reasons Why People Need to Work in a Job” subscale unveiled a dual-group
distribution, with engineers presenting the highest average. Employees,
technicians, experts, and other personnel featured within both clusters.
In summary, the application of the Duncan test reveals distinctive groupings across
these sub-factors. Engineers frequently occupy the group with the highest averages,

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7868
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
suggesting certain trends in how these factors relate to their roles.
In the study of Gedik et al. (2018), those who are operating chiefs / production
chiefs have higher work motivation, whereas in the study of Akyuz and Yildirim (2015),
those who work in administrative staff have higher occupational and external job
satisfaction. On the other hand, Cok et al. (2017) found that those who work as business
managers have higher job satisfaction.
Gedik et al. (2018) revealed that individuals in roles as operating chiefs or
production chiefs exhibit elevated levels of work motivation. Meanwhile, Akyuz and
Yildirim (2015) demonstrated that those employed in administrative staff positions report
heightened levels of occupational and external job satisfaction. Furthermore, Cok et al.
(2017) uncovered a notable trend, indicating that individuals holding business manager
positions tend to experience greater job satisfaction.

Table 7. One-way ANOVA of Motivation Levels and Work Life Quality Levels
According to Position in the Company
Sub Factors Position in Company N S.S P Duncan
Employee (1) 746 4.0080 .64276
Technician (2) 97 4.1443 .55358
Expert (3) 56 4.0821 .67987
(1-2-3-5-6)
A1 Engineer (4) 132 4.2409 .50144 .002
(2-3-4-5-6)
Office worker (5) 96 4.0562 .54111
Other (6) 48 4.0583 .62427
Total 1175 4.0550 .61824
Employee (1) 746 3.8880 .67741
Technician (2) 97 3.9897 .61602
Expert (3) 56 4.1036 .49137
(1-2-5)
A2 Engineer (4) 132 4.1803 .52297 .000
(2-3-4-6)
Office worker (5) 96 3.8938 .48380
Other (6) 48 4.1583 .61188
Total 1175 3.9510 .64006
Employee (1) 746 4.0322 .57590
Technician (2) 97 4.0351 .52758
Expert (3) 56 4.1321 .63621
A3 Engineer (4) 132 4.2136 .47160 .008 (1-2-3-4-5-6)
Office worker (5) 96 4.0354 .54367
Other (6) 48 4.2000 .63915
Total 1175 4.0647 .56705
Employee (1) 746 3.6842 .87051
Technician (2) 97 3.6309 .80278
Expert (3) 56 3.4250 .98944
A8 Engineer (4) 132 3.6561 .91745 .024 (1-2-3-4-5-6)
Office worker (5) 96 3.3917 .87439
Other (6) 48 3.5792 1.01163
Total 1175 3.6361 .88593
Employee (1) 746 3.9137 .67964
Technician (2) 97 3.8763 .62413
Expert (3) 56 3.8036 .80498
(1-2-3-5-6)
A10 Engineer (4) 132 3.9924 .60097 .046
(1-2-3-4-6)
Office worker (5) 96 3.7187 .62481
Other (6) 48 3.9375 .66545
Total 1175 3.8992 .67027

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7869
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
One-Way ANOVA Results of Levels of Motivation and Work Life Quality of
Employees by Sectors
The results of one-way ANOVA regarding the motivation levels and work life
quality levels of the employees according to the fields are given Table 8.

Table 8. One-way ANOVA of Motivation Levels and Work Life Quality Levels
According to Sectors
Sub-Factors Field N S.S P Duncan
Furniture (1) 576 4.0663 .68472
Panel (2) 403 4.0938 .50847
(1-3-4)
Paper (3) 100 3.8840 .67640
A1 .014 (1-2-4)
NWFP (4) 61 3.9279 .49266
(1-2-5)
Service (5) 35 4.1314 .55718
Total 1175 4.0550 .61824
Furniture (1) 576 4.1326 .61555
Panel (2) 403 4.0352 .45934
Paper (3) 100 4.1060 .54714 (4)
A5 .002
NWFP (4) 61 3.8623 .49604 (1-2-3-5)
Service (5) 35 4.0971 .79613
Total 1175 4.0819 .56442
Furniture (1) 576 3.9714 .66565
Panel (2) 403 3.8868 .59291
(4)
Paper (3) 100 4.1080 .49598
A6 .000 (1-2-5)
NWFP (4) 61 3.5934 .57500
(1-3-5)
Service (5) 35 4.0571 .54140
Total 1175 3.9369 .62771
Furniture (1) 576 4.0615 .61701
Panel (2) 403 3.8715 .55418
Paper (3) 100 4.0540 .47978 (2-4)
A7 .000
NWFP (4) 61 3.7607 .58403 (1-3-5)
Service (5) 35 4.0914 .64232
Total 1175 3.9809 .59249
Furniture (1) 576 3.8972 .77858
Panel (2) 403 3.3196 .90190
(4)
Paper (3) 100 3.8780 .70947
A8 .000 (2)
NWFP (4) 61 2.7311 .82048
(1-3-5)
Service (5) 35 3.8686 .73395
Total 1175 3.6361 .88593
Furniture (1) 576 4.1639 .60590
Panel (2) 403 4.0328 .54171
Paper (3) 100 4.0240 .67825
A9 .004 (1-2-3-4-5)
NWFP (4) 61 4.0098 .56854
Service (5) 35 4.1714 .75948
Total 1175 4.0992 .59743
Furniture (1) 576 4.0080 .64896
Panel (2) 403 3.7464 .68029 (4)
Paper (3) 100 4.1900 .50881 (2-5)
A10 .000
NWFP (4) 61 3.4262 .53226 (1-5)
Service (5) 35 3.8629 .73207 (1-3)
Total 1175 3.8992 .67027
Furniture (1) 576 4.1396 .63604 (4)
A11 Panel (2) 403 3.9127 .70147 .000 (2)
Paper (3) 100 4.2260 .49536 (1-3-5)

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7870
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
NWFP (4) 61 3.5246 .58784
Service (5) 35 4.1714 .71643
Total 1175 4.0381 .66898
Furniture (1) 576 4.1729 .58202
Panel (2) 403 4.1052 .50337
Paper (3) 100 4.1320 .49337 (4)
A12 .000
NWFP (4) 61 3.8426 .50612 (1-2-3-5)
Service (5) 35 4.0343 .62776
Total 1175 4.1249 .55078

Table 8 shows “Factors affecting mood and motivation level of employees”,

“Qualifications thought to be in an administrator”, “awards factor in return success”, “The
most important human needs”, “The reasons for dissatisfaction with the job”, and “The
most important reasons for dissatisfaction with the job”. The sub-factors of “expectations
from the company”, “reasons people need to work at a job”, “expectations in terms of
professional development”, “improvability of work life quality” show a statistically
significant difference (P<0.05).
Upon subjecting these differences to analysis using the Duncan test, distinctive
patterns emerged across various sub-factors:
1. In the “Factors Affecting Mood and Motivation Level” subscale, three distinct
groups came to the forefront. Notably, individuals working in the service field
achieved the highest average. Furthermore, employees engaged in the furniture,
panel, and NWFP fields were found in both of these groupings.
2. Within the “Qualifications Considered for Managerial Roles” subscale, a dual-
group configuration took shape. Those in the NWFP field reported the lowest
average, whereas those in the furniture field secured the highest average.
3. The “Awards for Success” subscale revealed a tripartite distribution, with the
NWFP field registering the lowest average and the paper field attaining the highest
average. Additionally, employees in the service field find representation in both
groups.
4. The “Most Important Human Needs” subscale presents a two-group formation,
where individuals in the service field exhibited the highest average.
5. In the context of the “Reasons for Job Dissatisfaction” subscale, a tri-group pattern
unfolded. The NWFP field experienced the lowest average, while the furniture field
recorded the highest average. Notably, the NWFP and panel industry personnel
were part of a shared group.
6. The “Expectations from the Company” subscale generated a single group
configuration, where individuals in the service field boasted the highest average.
7. The “Reasons Why People Need to Work in a Job” subscale evoked a four-fold
distribution. The NWFP field showcased the lowest average, whereas the paper
field demonstrated the highest average. Those in the furniture field and individuals
working in the service field found themselves in both of these groups.
8. Within the “Expectations Regarding Professional Development” subscale, a three-
group structure emerged. The NWFP field exhibited the lowest average, while the
paper field commanded the highest average. Importantly, the NWFP and panel
industry workers formed a distinct grouping.

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7871
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
9. The sub-scale “Improvement in Work Life Quality” yielded a dual-group pattern,
with the NWFP field recording the lowest average and those in the furniture field
attaining the highest average.
In summary, the application of the Duncan test underscores significant groupings
within these sub-factors. Notably, employees in the service field and individuals working
within specific industries often exhibited distinct patterns of perceptions and averages.

Level of Influence of Sub-Factors of Motivation Levels by Sub-Factors of

Quality of Work Life
The impact of work-life sub-factors on the levels of motivation sub-factors was
assessed through multiple regression analyses. Employing the stepwise method, multiple
regression equations were derived by incorporating six work-life quality sub-factors
(independent variables) to predict the six motivation level sub-factors (dependent
variables).
In the multiple regression analysis, the stepwise method was employed to select the
most statistically significant variables, which were subsequently integrated into the model.
Among the multiple regression equations that exhibited significance for each dependent
variable, only the R2 (coefficient of determination) value with the highest magnitude was
reported in the study.
A general equation for multiple regression analysis is shown below.
Y = α + β 1*X1 + β 2*X2 + β 3*X3 +…..+ β k*Xk + εi (1)
In this model, Y is a dependent (result) variable and is assumed to have a certain
error; X is an independent (cause) variable and is assumed to be measured without error; α
is a constant and is the value of Y when X=0; β is the regression coefficient and expresses
the amount of change that occurs in Y in response to a 1 unit change in X; and ε is a random
error term that is assumed to have a normal distribution with a mean of zero variance (σ2).
This assumption is required for importance checks of coefficients, not parameter estimates.
The dependent (A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, A6) and independent (A7, A8, A9, A10, A11,
A12) variables used in multiple regression equations are given below.
A1; Factors affecting mood and motivation level
A2; Motivation tools
A3; Factors determining job satisfaction
A4; Factors applicable promotion
A5; Qualities considered to be in an administrator
A6; Awards in return success
A7; Most important human needs
A8; The most common causes of dissatisfaction on job
A9; Expectations from the company they work with
A10; Reasons why people need a job
A11; Expectations in terms of professional development
A12; Expression the reasons why people need to work in a job.
The equations and coefficients obtained for the 6 dependent variables as a result
of the multiple regression analysis performed separately are given below, respectively.
A1 = 1.848 + 0.285*A7 + 0.262*A9 (2)

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7872
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
A2 = 1.661 + 0.240*A9 + 0.150*A7 + 0.096*A12 + 0.078*A11 (3)
A3 = 1.512 + 0.281*A7 + 0.193*A9 + 0.101*A10 + 0.060*A12 (4)
A4 = 2.022 + 0.229*A7 + 0.233*A9 + 0.080*A10 - 0.053*A8 (5)
A5 = 1.938 + 0.207*A7 + 0.181*A9 + 0.084*A11 + 0.060*A10 (6)
A6 = 1.040 + 0.209*A11 + 0.209*A7 + 0.118*A8 + 0.114*A10 + 0.084*A12 (7)
The respective multiple determination coefficients (R2) for each equation were as
follows: 0.202, 0.172, 0.285, 0.168, 0.207, and 0.358. The coefficient of determination
signifies the extent to which the independent variables account for the variance in the
dependent variable. The obtained results have demonstrated conformity with the literature,
and the hypotheses that were stated earlier are accepted. Quality of work life and
motivation are two concepts that should not be considered separately; a positive
improvement in one also positively influences the other.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Wages and social rights emerge as the foremost factors influencing motivation levels.
Both in terms of motivating individuals and enhancing work life, wages hold a primary
position. The significance of wages is underscored as a pivotal factor impacting
motivation and elevating work life satisfaction.
2. Employee preferences, when selecting a company, are shaped by various
considerations, starting with wage conditions, followed by insurance coverage, social
opportunities, health and safety provisions, job security, management approach, and
finally, developmental prospects.
3. Within specific occupational fields, distinct patterns arise: employees in the service
sector exhibit the highest average across five sub-factors, those in the paper industry
lead in three sub-factors, the panel industry excels in one sub-factor, and the furniture
industry tops three sub-factors.
4. In relation to industry variables, significant differences are apparent among sub-factors
such as “Factors Affecting Mood and Motivation Level,” “Qualifications Considered
for Managerial Roles,” “Awards for Success,” “Most Essential Human Needs,”
“Reasons for Job Dissatisfaction,” “Expectations from the Company,” “Reasons Why
People Need to Work in a Job,” “Expectations Regarding Professional Development,”
and “Improvement of Work Life Quality.”
5. Multiple regression equations yield the following coefficients of determination (R2) for
dependent variables A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, and A6: 0.202, 0.172, 0.285, 0.168, 0.207,
and 0.358, respectively. These coefficients quantify the proportion of variance in the
dependent variables explained by the independent variables.

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7873
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
REFERENCES CITED

Aksu, B. (2001). “The analysis of administrative and organizational structure of big scale
furniture industry enterprises in Turkey,” Journal of the Faculty of Forestry Istanbul
University 51(2), 95-115.
Akyuz, K. C., Kocak, S., Balaban, Y., Yildirim, I., and Gedik, T. (2011). “Investigating
job satisfaction level of employees (the case of Mugla forest district directorate),”
SDU Faculty of Forestry Journal 12(1), 20-26.
Akyuz, K. C., and Yildirim, I. (2015). “The analysis of job satisfaction and organizational
commitment levels of employees in the forest products industry,” Düzce University
Faculty of Forestry Journal of Forestry 11(1), 16-34.
Akyuz, K. C., Yildirim, I., Ersen, N., Akyuz, I., and Memis, D. (2020). “Competitiveness
of the forest products industry in Turkey: the revealed comparative advantage index,”
Drewno 63(205), 155-170. DOI: 10.12841/wood.1644-3985.333.09
Aydin, A., and Tiryaki S. (2017). “Investigation of performance on forest products
industry with performance appraisal system,” Kastamonu Univ., Journal of Forestry
Faculty 17(3), 394-403. DOI: 10.17475/kastorman.280534
Aydin, A., and Tiryaki, S. (2018). “Impact of performance appraisal on employee
motivation and productivity in Turkish forest products industry: A structural equation
modeling analysis,” Drvna Industrija 69(2), 101-111. DOI:10.5552/drind.2018.1710
Aydin, A., and Ucuncu, K. (2016). “Investigation in terms of demographic characteristics
of the factors affecting employee performance in forest products industry enterprises
with quality management system,” Dokuz Eylul University the Journal of Graduate
School of Social Science 18(4), 769-785.
Bartol, K. M., and Martin, D. C. (1998). Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, USA.
Cicek, D. 2005. Motivation and Quality of Work Life (Qwl) in Organizations: A Research
About By Determining the Motivation Level of Managers in Public Organization and
Developing Their Well. Ph.D. Dissertation, Çukurova University, Institute of Social
Sciences, Adana, Turkey.
Cok, N., Goksu, E., Doganer, A., Kalkan, B., and Gunes, O. (2017). “The effect of job
satisfaction and some individual characteristics of the employees of Elazığ forestry
district directorate on job satisfaction,” Turkish Journal of Forest Science 1(2), 155-
168.
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2000). “The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior,” Psychological Inquiry 11(4), 227-268.
DOI: 10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., and Ryan, R. M. (1989). “Self-determination in a work
organization,” Journal of Applied Psychology 74(4), 580-590.
Dogan, K., and Akyildiz, H. (2017). “Situation of wood-based panel industry in Turkey,”
Pro Ligno 13(4), 617-629.
Gedik, T., Cil, M., Korkut, D. S., Kaya, M. Y., and Simsek, B. (2018). “A research on
work motivation of managers of forest products industry in Düzce,” Turkish Journal
of Forestry 19(1), 91-97.
Gedik, T. (2010). A Fieldwork on The Assessment and Increasing of The Employee’s
Performance in Forest Products Industry Sector (Furniture and Panel Factories
Case). Ph.D. Dissertation, Karadeniz Technical University, Graduate Institute of
Natural and Applied Sciences, Trabzon, Turkey.

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7874
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Hitka, M., Lorincova, S., Gejdos, M., Klaric, K., and Weberova, D. (2019).
“Management approach to motivation of white-collar employees in forest
enterprises,” BioResources 14(3), 5488-5505. DOI: 10.15376/biores.14.3.5488-5505
Hitka, M., Lipoldova, M., and Schmidtova, J. (2020). “Employees’ motivation
preferences in forest and wood-processing enterprises,” Acta Facultatis Xylologiae
Zvolen 62(1), 151-164. DOI: 10.17423/afx.2020.62.1.13
Hitka, M., Lorincová, S., Gejdos, M., and Lipoldova, M. (2022). “Employee motivation
during the time of the crisis in agricultural and forestry organizations: Case study,”
Agricultural Economics – Czech, 68(7), 271-281. DOI: 10.17221/71/2022-Agricecon
Jalagat, R. (2016). “Job performance, job satisfaction, and motivation: A critical review
of their relationship,” International Journal of Advances in Management and
Economics 5(6), 36-43.
Kalayci, S. (2018). SPSS Applied Multivariate Statistics Techniques, Dynamic Academy
Publication Distribution, Ankara, Turkey.
Kara, O., Sahin, O., Bekar, I., and Kayacan, B. (2019). “International competitiveness
analysis of industrial wood and wood products sector: The case of Turkey,” The
International Journal of Economic and Social Research 15(1), 15-32.
Lorincová, S., Schmidtová, J., and Javorčíková, J. (2018). “The impact of the working
position on the level of employee motivation in Slovak furniture companies,” Acta
Facultatıs Xylologıae Zvolen 60(2), 209-221. DOI: 10.17423/afx.2018.60.2.20 209
Mappamiring, M., Akob, M., and Putra, A. H. P. K. (2020). “What millennial workers
want? Turnover or intention to stay in company,” Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics and Business 7(5), 237-248. DOI: 10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no5.237
Mitchell, T. R. (1982). “Motivation: New direction for theory, research, and practices,”
Academy of Management Review 7(1), 80-88.
Paais, M., and Pattiruhu, J. R. (2020). “Effect of motivation, leadership, and
organizational culture on satisfaction and employee performance,” Journal of Asian
Finance, Economics and Business 7(8), 577-588. DOI:
10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no8.577
Rahimic, Z., Resic, E., and Kozo, E. (2012). “Determining the level of management
competences in the process of employee motivation,” Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences 41(1), 535-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.04.066
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., and Meece, J. L. (2008). Motivation in Education: Theory,
Research, and Applications (3rd ed.), Upper Saddle River, N.J., Pearson/Merrill
Prentice Hall.
Social Security Institution (2020). (http://www.ssk.gov.tr), Accessed 10 September 2020.
Solanki, K. R. (2013). “Flextime association with job satisfaction, work productivity,
motivation & employees stress levels,” Journal of Human Resource Management
1(1), 9-14. DOI: 10.11648/j.jhrm.20130101.12
Trishkin, M., Lopatin, E., and Karjalainen, T. (2014). “Assessment of motivation and
attitudes of forest industry companies toward forest certification in northwestern
Russia,” Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research 29(3), 283-293.
DOI:10.1080/02827581.2014.896938
Turkoglu, T., and Yurdakul, U. (2017). “The investigation of the relationship between the
job satisfaction and job performance of employees in the furniture sector,” Artvin
Coruh University Journal of Forestry Faculty 18(1), 88-97.

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7875
PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLE bioresources.com
Varma, C. (2017). “Importance of employee motivation & job satisfaction for
organizational performance,” International Journal of Social Science &
Interdisciplinary Research 6(2), 10-20.
Whisenand, P. M., and Rush, G. E. (1998). Supervising Police Personnel: Back to Basics,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey, USA.

Article submitted: August 12, 2023; Peer review completed: September 16, 2023;
Revised version received: September 18, 2023; Accepted: September 27, 2023;
Published: October 4, 2023.
DOI: 10.15376/biores.18.4.7856-7876

Yıldırım & Han (2023). “Forest products motivation,” BioResources 18(4), 7856-7876. 7876
Copyright of BioResources is the property of North Carolina State University c/o Forest
Biomaterials and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.